Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 436 of 2005
PETITIONER:
The District Collector,Ananthapur & Anr.
RESPONDENT:
V. Laxmanna
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/03/2005
BENCH:
N. Santosh Hegde & S.B. Sinha
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3255/03)
SANTOSH HEGDE, J.
Leave granted.
The grievance of the State Government in this appeal primarily
is that the High Court erred in quashing the detention order on the
ground that some of the instances relied upon by the detaining
authority be ing stale the entire detention order becomes invalid. So
far as this grievance of the appellant-State is concerned the same is
since addressed to by us in our judgment in the case of The Collector
& District Magistrate, W.G.Dist. Eluru, Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Vs. Sangala Kondamma [2004 (10) SCALE 315] wherein we have
held:
"thus, if the facts placed before the
detaining authority are proximate to each
other and the last of the fact mentioned is
proximate to the order of detention then the
earlier incident cannot be treated as stale and
the order cannot be set aside."
The principle extracted herein above from the case The Collector &
District Magistrate, W.G.Dist. Eluru, Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
(supra) applies to the facts of this case also.
In the above case of The Collector & District Magistrate, W.G.
Dist. Eluru, Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (supra) even though we held the
order of the High Court was unsustainable, we did not interfere with
the same for reasons mentioned therein. In the normal course, the
very same reasons would have been sufficient to dispose of this
appeal also without interfering with the order of the High Court.
But, Mr. M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent submitted that there is another question of law which
requires consideration arising from the facts of this case which also
may be decided in this case since the same issue arises very often in
many detention matters arising out of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention
of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-offenders,
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986
(the ’Act’) hence, he submitted that the same may also be decided in
this appeal itself because there is no judgment of this Court on this
point. Ms. D.Bharathi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-State
concurs with the submission made by Mr. M N Rao.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
The contention of Mr. Rao is that under the Act it is only the
manufacture, transport and sale of arrack which is dangerous to
public health which alone would become an act prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order attracting the provisions of the Detention
Act. The detaining authority has to be satisfied on material placed
before it that the alleged manufacture, transport or sale of arrack was
unfit for human consumption and if it is based on that material, the
detaining authority wants to pass the order of detention then copies of
such material based on which he forms the opinion that the arrack so
sold by him is dangerous to public health, must also be given to the
detenu otherwise the detenu will not be in a position to make an
effective representation.
The learned counsel appearing for the State contends that such
supply of material is not necessary because in the State of Andhra
Pradesh the sale of arrack itself is prohibited, therefore, under the
provisions of the Act, the manufacture, transport and sale of arrack is
prohibited and hence under the Act it is sufficient if the detaining
authority is satisfied that the detenu is indulging in such manufacture,
transport and sale of arrack and there is no need for him to come to
the conclusion that such arrack is dangerous to public health.
Consequently, it is not necessary for the detaining authority to give
materials based on which the detaining authority came to the
conclusion that the detention of the detenu on the ground that he is
manufacturing, transporting or selling arrack unfit for human
consumption is necessary.
We do not think this argument of the learned counsel can be
accepted. If the detention is on the ground that the detenu is
indulging in manufacture or transport or sale of arrack then that by
itself would not become an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order because the same can be effectively dealt with under the
provisions of the Excise Act but if the arrack sold by the detenu is
dangerous to public health then under the Act, it becomes an activity
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, therefore, it becomes
necessary for the detaining authority to be satisfied on material
available to him that the arrack dealt with by the detenu is an arrack
which is dangerous to public health to attract the provisions of the
Act and if the detaining authority is satisfied that such material exists
either in the form of report of the Chemical Examiner or otherwise
copy such material should also be given to the detenu to afford him
an opportunity to make an effective representation.
Therefore, while holding that dealing with arrack which is
dangerous to public health would become an act prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order attracting the provisions of the Act. It
must be held that it is obligatory for the detaining authority to
provide the material on which it has based its conclusion on this
point. Therefore, we are in agreement with the High Court that if the
detaining authority is of the opinion that it is necessary to detain a
person under the Act to prevent him from indulging in sale of goods
dangerous for human consumption the same should be based on some
material and the copies of the such material should be given to the
detenu.
For the reasons stated above this appeal fails and is dismissed.